JediMaster

Funny you should say that!

That's not extreme enough. It should be XTREME.

I don't think Springsteen will look too good in that stuff, but hey...

Also missing: Release date (within say "2Q 13" or something range...an actual day of an actual month would be asking too much. Actual confirmed list of what's in it.

Because of the yellow color scheme they used for many years.

Major Hollywood moment there...

For that system, yes. But for an SA-9?

I think this means he made a MiG-25 for Exp 3. Whether that will actually come out and be in there, I don't know, but it's the most logical explanation.

Yeah, check that out. Worst case scenario, delete and reinstall. CloD still has post-patch issues, but none are what you're describing.

Yes, the anti-missile ability of SAMs is a bit too much. I don't think there's a single documented case of it happening ever aside from the Patriot/SCUD thing, but shooting down a Maverick???

Your opinion of how well his ST film stuck to "ST" is largely irrelevant. He said numerous times he was never an ST fan growing up, he was into SW. He made ST more like SW because that appealed to him. Naturally people who dislike SW or are ST purists wouldn't like it as much, but too bad...the audience wants SW more than ST. Look what the previous 2 TNG films did in the box office, his ST made double their combined gross. Enterprise failed off TV, first one since TOS in 1969 to do that. ST was dead, sticking to its "roots" was only going to be another failure, and the praise from diehard fans won't pay the bills. You think maybe SW 7 will be like ST:TMP now or something? It's going to be like SW, and probably more like the original trilogy than the prequels because he was already busy making his own stuff when the prequels came out, the originals are what informed his direction. Also, when are people going to give up the lens flares whines? He did it for ONE film (I saw no lens flare plethora in MI3 or Super 8), he's not doing it for the new ST film, he won't do it again.

I remember a coop MP mission in FC1 flying A-10As vs S300s. Your only hope was to take out the tracking radar with a Maverick on your first attempt, and you better be VERY low, unless there were other planes in the area to get fired at instead of you, letting you close in.

Yeah, unlike TK's "deliberately degraded" CCIP pipper, the ones in LOMAC and DCS have always been top notch.

Why would they need a STOVL fighter? They're very inefficient and unless you absolutely can't get by with a regular layout there's no reason. A bit puzzling there, unless this is just a "we can do it too" move. That or they have serious concerns on their runways being taken out. Anyway, that video is amusing as it shows 2 stills of their plane, several times, but then several minutes of X-35 and F-35 footage.

Why are these places prone to having these types of incidents? Is it the allowing people drinking heavily to smoke in a dark room where they can drop their smokes and not see them? Is it the questionable decor is overly flammable?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095382/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103617/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113438/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3

The A-10A Stuka?

Reminds me of a scene in DS9 when some character (I forget who) hugs Worf.

The Iron Eagle films. They make Top Gun look like the Godfather.

Yes, but would you rather live in a democracy with decent citizens or a tyranny with servile serfs? The type of gov't you have doesn't dictate what kind of people live there, it's the reverse. The biggest problem I have is with the constitutional purists. It was great for the first almost 100 years of the country, when things were pretty much the same. The Civil War proved it was flawed, yet no major changes were made in its wake. The people and the world have changed a lot in the last 150 years, but other than a few relatively unimportant amendments dealing with things like succession there have been no fundamental alterations. The founders intended for the Constitution to evolve and grow, and outdated things to be discarded, as the nation and its people evolved and grew. People who blindly put them on a pedestal and say "we shouldn't change a thing!!" are totally missing the point. If you want to live in 1820, the original Constitution is ideal. For 2020, it needs changing. There are things today totally undreamt of back then that need to be considered. Of course, that would require consensus, and every group in this country thinks ONLY they know what is proper, and all the rest are misguided at best or stupid, tyrannical, or traitors (ie "unAmerican") at worst. In the past few decades "compromise" has become a 4 letter word, which is ironic as it's the principle the Constitution was based on and patterned to embrace. Instead of groups taking turns having things their way, they want it their way 100% of the time. If they don't get it, they demonize and insult the ones who did. What's best for the country has taken a back seat to what's best for them, even if it hurts the country, because they believe hurting the country NOW is ok because when they get their way EVENTUALLY things will be better. Oh, and bin Laden and Al Qaeda won the war even if they lost every battle. This country was so much better off in 2000 than now, even after the dotcom bubble burst, because of all the things we've done since then. I think it safe to say very few people like the state of the country in 2013 more than they did in 2000, no matter what they support, even though they likely will give different reasons. The answer is simple, though: in an attempt to combat what we thought was a grave threat from outside (far more people died and money was lost due to our responses to 9/11 than we actually lost that first week) we destroyed what it was to be living here. We were fiscally, internationally, and morally irresponsible for over a decade and everyone is at fault for letting it happen, if not actively causing it (like those losers in "Congress").

The problem is not so much "women" as it is "people trying to use/abuse the system." I think perhaps there might be more women who think they get in and use it as a crutch and not have to pull their weight than there are men. It's well known the ranks of the enlisted come from the "have nots", because they can't get in as officers with just high school. By whining and crying discrimination they try and keep themselves out of "hard" jobs but also make themselves conspicuous, perhaps in the hopes of getting promotions and better benefits? The people in the military are not magically different from the rest of the country. If x% of the country is lazy, you can bet close to x% of the military ranks are people trying to be as lazy as they can. The difference is in the private sector they get booted down to crappy jobs or have none, while in the military it's not so cut and dry and morale is hurt more.

The Elder Scrolls games let you ride horses, so I would think it would be something the engine could always do. Of course, there seem to be no working vehicles in Fallout's era aside from boats, but I wondered why you couldn't ride a horse in Fallout.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/hbo-developing-third-wwii-miniseries-413632 The Mighty 8th! Maybe we'll see some really good aerial footage?

Yes, I'll be watching it tonight. I don't know if I'll watch the whole thing or not...

The defensive laser turret is actually to destroy the seeker, or at least blind it, not detonate the missile. Then the missile would be incapable of tracking its target and would just fly on by. As for HELLADS...anyone see Real Genius? About 30 years ago, and it looked JUST like that picture at the top!